|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Interesting Quotes from Obama's Pastor (3/27/2008 9:54:59 AM)
|
quote:
There is ONE link...he certainly does not seem to me to be preaching hate, to me.
You tube will let you search his name and watch more of his sermons...why not do it and really listen to what he is saying. ...Instead of projecting, as suggested.
MsB
I believe you are a person who will consider this reply on its merit, or lack of, and answer it without prejudice.
Although the OP has directed attention to Senator Obama's Pastor, obviously the issue is Senator Obama; his candidacy, his judgment, and those who he considers advisers. It isn't necessary to re-quote how much an influence the Pastor was to the Senator. He's not backed down from that position. Much to his credit, the Senator has made public his tax records which indicate he puts his money where his mouth is considering his financial support of the Pastor and the Church.
You should know that as much as I consider what is represented in the Church's mission statement is racist which assures ongoing racial animosity; I would go to war to insure that the Pastor and his Church have the ability to continue doing just the same for as long as there is a congregation wanting to support those racist positions. I'd have a similar position regarding any white version. My only caveat would be that they, and no 'religion' for that matter, should realize a tax benefit in doing so, but that's for another thread.
This is about the electability of Senator Obama.
The first question straight up, if it were discovered that before 1980 that Ronald Reagan was a member of a "white centric" church; would he have been the standard bearer of the Republican party regardless when that information came to light? As much as the attempts to link Senator McCain to national right wing preachers, like Hagee, selling religion to the ignorant masses; the comparison begins and ends with endorsements. An endorsement is something the candidate can't control. Affiliation, support, and considering the man a trusted adviser requires a different consideration.
I doubt that the majority, or even many, who will vote in November will compare the negative, racist, quotes of the Pastor to his other sermons. What the public will see is he negative quotes, followed by Senator Obama describing him as a trusted confidant and dismissing the negatives as the rantings of an old, senile(?), 'uncle'. The opposition will make sure that image is burned in the publics eye; second only to President's Clinton and Senator Clinton's speaking to the lack of experience and qualifications of the Senator to be President. When the opposition can play your own party's campaign ads and run them against you, it's not a good thing. When the spokesman is a popular ex-President; the problem is compounded.
I appreciate you support of the Senator. I was on-board too for awhile. My political affiliation is the 'Anti-Incumbent Party' of which I've been a member since 2005. I haven't voted for one elected official since and don't plan to do so in November. The Presidency this year doesn't provide that choice, but the combination of having a Corporate candidate on the ballot as well as other issues with the RNC, make voting 'red' impossible. I was hoping to vote 'blue'. Now I don't see that happening either.
Senator Clinton's 'Bullets Over Bosnia' speech was the final reason not to consider a vote for her. Actually maybe it was the next day, when the word lie was translated into misspoken. People worry about Senator McCain's memory at 72, should wonder about Senator Clinton's.
What do we do? Where do we turn to find a 'vote-for' candidate? I have no idea.
I suggested that both Senators Obama and Clinton surrender their delegates; making Denver an 'open convention'. It would be riveting to the country and maybe someone else will come to the forefront. It doesn't appear that either is giving that serious consideration. Maybe after Pennsylvania that will change, but for now the same egos that were used to get them this far stand in the way of that solution.
I do know that Senator Obama can not win. Today that points to an incumbent party retaining the White House. If this trend in the DNC continues it may mean the coat tails will impact the Senate and Congress. After all, the primaries are akin to baseball's spring training. Nobody shows everything they have and I'd be surprised if we've heard about all the potential skeletons in Senator Obama's closet. I'm sure there will also be much disclosed on Senator McCain. However in McCain's case, his history and experience has already been subject to public scrutiny. No less a institution as the NY Times couldn't hit him broadside with a shot and ended up strengthening him. Maybe if Senator Obama had similar experience or his 'Change' campaign really indicated some, the problem wouldn't be so insurmountable.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
